×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Texas Supreme Court Rules Typed Copy of Grievance Decision Satisfies Chapter 14
The Supreme Court of Texas has held that a prisoner who submits a hand-typed copy of the prison grievance decision he received adequately meets the requirements of Chapter 14, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (TCPRC).
Michael Lou Garrett, a Texas state prisoner, filed a prison-related lawsuit in state district court. Because he filed the pro se suit in forma pauperis, Garrett’s case was subject to the provisions of TCPRC § 14.005(a)(2), which required that he file with the court “a copy of the written decision from the grievance system.”
Texas prisoners have no access to photocopiers. Therefore, Garrett filed a hand-typed, verbatim copy of the grievance decision. The trial court held that the word “copy” meant only a photocopy and dismissed the suit for failure to comply with § 14.005(a)(2). Garrett appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal with one judge dissenting. Garrett filed a petition for review, which the Texas Supreme Court granted. The Supreme Court held that because Chapter 14 does not contain a definition of the term “copy,” it must “apply its ordinary or common meaning,” which “includes a hand-typed, verbatim reproduction.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. See: Garrett v. Borden, 283 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. 2009).
Michael Lou Garrett, a Texas state prisoner, filed a prison-related lawsuit in state district court. Because he filed the pro se suit in forma pauperis, Garrett’s case was subject to the provisions of TCPRC § 14.005(a)(2), which required that he file with the court “a copy of the written decision from the grievance system.”
Texas prisoners have no access to photocopiers. Therefore, Garrett filed a hand-typed, verbatim copy of the grievance decision. The trial court held that the word “copy” meant only a photocopy and dismissed the suit for failure to comply with § 14.005(a)(2). Garrett appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal with one judge dissenting. Garrett filed a petition for review, which the Texas Supreme Court granted. The Supreme Court held that because Chapter 14 does not contain a definition of the term “copy,” it must “apply its ordinary or common meaning,” which “includes a hand-typed, verbatim reproduction.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. See: Garrett v. Borden, 283 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. 2009).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Garrett v. Borden
| Year | 2009 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 283 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. 2009) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |